"Yoon appears in person at the impeachment trial"...Ruling and opposition parties fight to withdraw their rebellion.

■ Hosted by: Anchor Sung-kyu Sung-gyu
■ Starring: Lee Jong-geun, current affairs critic, Professor Bae Jong-ho of Seha University

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN Newswide] when quoting.

[Anchor]
President Yoon Suk Yeol has announced his position to attend the Constitutional Court's impeachment hearing in person. Another day before the deadline for an arrest warrant for the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. Attention is focusing on whether the warrant will be re-executed and when it will be re-executed. I'll summarize the news with the two of you. Lee Jong-geun, a current affairs critic, and Bae Jong-ho, a professor at Seha University, are here. Hello, both of you. The validity of President Yoon's arrest warrant issued by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is one day left. There wasn't much movement today. Will the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit execute it tomorrow, how do you see it?

[Lee Jong-geun]
Tomorrow is the last day. The expiration date. But didn't the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit take out the knife? If so, it would be very embarrassing to put it back in. Because the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit asks the prosecution to transfer it to the prosecution for this investigation this time, and also forms a collaborative version with the police. If so, shouldn't something pay off? But if you do nothing until tomorrow and postpone it for another week or just ask for an arrest warrant, it will come out like this right away. No, why did he do that until now to defect the country? So if you think you'll make something happen, there's a possibility that you'll execute it one more time tomorrow. But the variable is whether the security agency will change its position.

[Anchor]
Professor Bae, what do you think?

[Bae Jong Ho]
I think we'll have to wait and see tomorrow. Because looking at the attitude of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit so far, I think I lack the will. The reason why I think so is that the first execution of the arrest warrant failed, right? The reason for the failure was, as a result, absolutely insufficient in the number of people. About 100 people were involved in the execution of arrest warrants by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. However, since there were about 200 security guards, they were absolutely behind in numbers, and the security guards resisted stubbornly, which ended in failure. Then, I have a personal doubt that if there was a really strong will to execute, I would not have investigated this sufficiently in advance.

[Anchor]
Then you're saying that you might not do it tomorrow.

[Bae Jong Ho]
It is difficult for me to rule out the possibility of not doing it for now. And what I'm hearing now is that there's only one day left since it's tomorrow, so as our critic said, there's a possibility that we'll still do something. But even if it's done in a show-off manner, as in the first execution, it could lead to more criticism. So there's another number of cases. So the expiration date of the arrest warrant is a week, but tomorrow is the deadline. So there's one way to extend this. And I think the other thing is how to request an arrest warrant, these three things are being considered.

[Anchor]
Let's continue with the problem slowly. First of all, the court raised this objection from President Yoon's side today. The arrest warrant is unreasonable, illegal. So I filed an objection, but the court rejected it. What content did you dismiss?

[Lee Jong-geun]
First of all, this is what Chief Judge Ma Sung-young is talking about. So you can't cancel or change the arrest. So, if you want to do it already, you can ask for a legitimacy after you are arrested or arrested later. However, there is no case of arguing in advance whether the warrant is legal or not for this warrant.
Another one included the crime of rebellion, which I'll tell you later, is the same with the question of Articles 110 and 111. In fact, it was expected that the part that indicated that these two things could not be responded to in relation to state secrets or the confidentiality of public officials was merely a confirmation of the existing interpretation of the law, but the chief judge of the Western District Court dismissed it anyway.

[Anchor]
Could you elaborate on that?

[Lee Jong-geun]
I didn't understand about Articles 110 and 111. What this is about is that if Article 110 and Article 111 have military secrets, or if Article 110 has to guarantee confidentiality related to public officials' duties, Article 111. Regarding this part, the security service may not cooperate with this part.

[Anchor]
So I didn't cooperate, on that basis.

[Lee Jong-geun]
I didn't cooperate on that basis. The problem with this is that the constitution cannot be included in the law. Because law is a sub-concept. What's the warrant? It's a sub-concept of the law. It's an order. A warrant is issued by law. The law is not enforced by a warrant. In other words, the law stipulates that there is even a certain phrase in the warrant. The law even stipulates that the subject of the warrant, the period of the warrant, the purpose of execution of the warrant, write these things. But what this is now is a sub-concept, a warrant, regulated certain actions in the bill. And then the upside-down warrant can't be a higher concept of law, can it? However, it is the judge's act of overstepping authority to insert the phrase, "How and how the warrant should be used, but it is excluded from the part of the law, Articles 110 and 111. Such a bill is the first warrant in the history of the legal profession. The general interpretation is that the bill of a warrant cannot be regulated.

[Anchor]
So I filed an objection, but it was rejected. Professor Bae, please explain that part.

[Bae Jong Ho]
I don't think it's right to exceed the limit. First of all, the judiciary judges and interprets the law. So, isn't President Yoon Suk Yeol booked as a suspect in a rebellion by the investigative agency, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit? That's why I need to investigate. That's why I asked for attendance. I did it five times in total and three times in the airlift alone. But he's not attending right now. Then, he went into a forced investigation because he didn't attend. That's why I asked the court for an arrest warrant as a way of compulsory investigation. But the court issued an arrest warrant. The reason is that once the crime is serious, the charges have been largely clarified, and they continue to refuse to comply with the request for attendance, then they are forced to arrest and investigate. However, the president of Yoon Suk Yeol just filed an objection to this, but he rejected it. There are three reasons for the dismissal. The three points came out because the President of Yoon Suk Yeol raised three questions. The first is whether or not the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has the right to investigate rebellion, and this is an illegal arrest warrant request, so it is not the judge in charge of this. The reason is that according to the Public Offices Act, investigations related to abuse of authority can be conducted, but related investigations can be conducted, so this is legal. The second question is why the Seoul Western District Court is requesting a warrant, and the jurisdiction court is right because the presidential residence and the presidential office are now located. That's why I said this is legal, too. And as the critic said earlier, this is a violation of Articles 110 and 111. But no, this is also legal. The reason for this is because as you have said about Articles 110 and 111, you need the permission of the head of a military secret or official secret to conduct a search and an arrest warrant. Since an arrest warrant has been issued for a person, shouldn't you search for him if he hides? So the most important thing is this because we decided that this is also legal. It is illegal for the security service to issue an arrest warrant so far. So I defended the execution with the logic that it was invalid. However, if we stop the execution any longer, this will be completely illegal, so I will tell you that all of them will be punished for obstructing the execution of special public affairs.

[Anchor]
First of all, I've spent too much time explaining this law, but in a nutshell, the court asked me to dismiss it today to say that it is legal to issue an arrest warrant itself, execute an arrest warrant. The Democratic Party said this today. The security service ordered fire last Friday when it executed an arrest warrant last week. However, the security agency said that's not true, and now it's going in the form of a truth game. Specifically, what we talked about was that Rep. Choo Mi-ae is coming out now that she received such a report, and she's the head of the fact-finding mission. At that time, Park Jong-joon, the head of the security department, reported that he was ordered to fire horror bullets if he was pushed out of a physical fight and to fire live bullets if he couldn't. But the security service says it's never like that, and it's a truth game now.

[Lee Jong-geun]
It's a tip-off. I've already reported to Rep. Choo Mi-ae once. In fact, I brought documents related to martial law, but it is a copy, and the authenticity of this report was actually unclear, but it is the same this time. Cheongdam-dong Cafe, how did that go? When Representative Kim Eui-gyeom raised the issue, he said that all the evidence was completely by the report, but in conclusion, it was not true. This is still a tip-off as well. However, shouldn't the report also have some basis based on the principle of the lower and lower levels? However, I simply repeat that I was informed and there was an order to fire. Representative Park Sun-won told a similar story, but he said he heard that he was instructed to defend himself with flesh and bullets. The same lawmakers, one for hand-to-hand defense and one for firing orders. I also received a report from the same security service, but the contents and these parts continue to be different, so I raise the question of how far we will accept the reliability of this part.

[Anchor]
However, what has been confirmed is that the part that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit said they had personal firearms has been confirmed by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, and the actual firing of bullets is still at the level of reporting.

[Bae Jong Ho]
The anchor said a very important point, but the key is that all the agents in the security department have personal firearms. That's a given to the Security Service Act. Then this personal firearm is not an empty gun. It's a personal firearm loaded with live ammunition. That's according to the natural security law, so my story is. However, as I said earlier, the security agency is defending the execution of the arrest warrant on the logic that it is illegal to execute the arrest warrant. Another logic is that we say that the reason for existence is to protect the president's safety. If that happens, isn't the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit trying to execute the arrest warrant by mobilizing physical force because the court has confirmed twice that the arrest warrant is legal? Then the security chief is confident now. We must protect the president's safety. Then, of course, they're going to defend themselves. Then it's going to crash. So who guarantees that there will be no mishap in the collision process? In the process, there is a personal firearm, so someone can shoot, as a defense. But the important thing here is that they even ordered firing, right? Then, that part is still at the level of reporting, so we can't know. However, in the current situation in Korea, isn't something unimaginable becoming a reality? Isn't emergency martial law representative? When Representative Kim Min-seok talked about emergency situations, he said that was an absurd political offensive, but it turned out to be a reality. However, since the security service strongly opposes the execution of the arrest warrant by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the chief of security is a special official with the President of Yoon Suk Yeol, and this person is actually subject to investigation in connection with the alleged rebellion. So, there is a very high possibility that these reports will become a reality. I'm concerned about that.

[Anchor]
Anyway, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit told me that when I returned to the army last Friday, I came back for safety reasons anyway. Anyway, it has not yet been confirmed whether there was an order to fire, and I confirm once again that the Democratic Party of Korea has talked about it at the level of reporting. But we reported it earlier.Ma was also seen wearing barbed wire internally. In the meantime, the ruling party protested because the military and police responded loosely at the security office at that time. The military and police used expressions such as "It's a rebellion" and "It's a rebellion." Is this the right expression?

[Lee Jong-geun]
Well, first of all, I was also puzzled that day. I know a little bit about the structure of the official residence. It passed by every day, and there was a time when I went into the foreign minister's official residence in the past. But if you look at it, the road to the diplomatic residence, or the official residence, on the main road is actually very narrow. And for example, we blocked the street with a minibus. And if you deploy people from there and try to lock them down to the place, it's actually not easy to get in. But the first cordon of the minibus was easily opened. Then, as we go up, which is called the second cordon, a crossroads comes out, and we have to go to the left for the presidential residence. But there was a minibus on the left. They just let me out of the way there, too. So when I first thought about these two parts, I didn't have the will to stop them from the beginning. If the security service does not try to block it, I thought it would be executed today, but later, I found out that the first and second cordons were loosely connected by the 55th Guard or the police 101 and 102nd Guard, as the anchor said.

[Anchor]
The 55th guard is the military.

[Lee Jong-geun]
He is a military officer, and 101 and 102 belong to the police. But if the security service is actually 101, 102 or 55 under the command and control of the security guard. However, if the head of the security department did not ask him to open the cordon of the order, but he did, the mutiny is correct. So what I've told you is that under the Security Service Act, which requires the control of the security chief, there are definitely parts to be judged as a defense even if you're dispatched here, which could be controversial later if you're faced with whether you've judged it as a service rule that you don't have to accept wrong orders.

[Anchor]
It's a matter of command, but whether the command of the military and the police is in the security office or the military and the police is in the military and the acting defense minister, Kim Sun-ho. Vice Minister Kim Sun-ho told me to operate to meet the supported security unit's mission, and this order opened the door, isn't that what it's said? I think it's very important where the command is.

[Bae Jong Ho]
I don't think the issue of command is the essence. I think the essence is whether it conforms to the Constitution and the law or not. Specifically, what happened to the person who followed President Yoon Suk Yeol's order in relation to President Yoon Suk Yeol's emergency martial law and civil war charges? Military leaders and police leaders are now in custody on charges of rebellion and important workers. So I was indicted and put on trial. So if President Yoon Suk Yeol's order was legitimate and he refused it, then he should be punished as a protest. But that was an unfair instruction. But if you refuse to do so, of course, you can't punish it by protest. Then, likewise, the order of the security chief was a legitimate order. If so, you'd be punished if you had claimed it, you'd be denied it. But if you don't think that's the case, you can't argue. Rather, the chief of security...

[Anchor]
The judgment is now controversial because of who, in fact, is now.

[Bae Jong Ho]
That's why I'm talking about that judgment right now. That's why the law makes that judgment. That's why the court issued an arrest warrant. However, the issue now is whether it is right to follow the execution or interfere with the execution of the arrest warrant. However, I'm not saying that the person who claims to have protested should have interfered, but he did not disturb and opened the way for me. On the contrary, I would say that the chief of security who demanded it now is punished as an accomplice of rebellion. That's why the military and police members are actually on the sidelines in a way. And I think in this situation, the acting Secretary of Defense and the acting Commissioner of the National Police Agency did a very good job. Because I actually told them not to cooperate. What happens if you cooperate? All of them will be punished as accomplices to the war. Or they're all punished for obstructing the execution of special public affairs. So I think the acting minister and the acting commissioner did a very good job. And these people are not a crime of mutiny at all. Rather, I think the security chief who gave unfair instructions will be punished in the future.

[Anchor]
Now anyway, there is no way as the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit stepped down from the first attempt last time. There's only one way, but that's acting Choi Sang-mok. Acting authority Choi Sang-mok asked me to use my command to cooperate with the execution of the arrest warrant, but there is no answer to that yet. How are you watching it?

[Lee Jong-geun]
Acting President Choi Sang-mok, of course, is the acting president. Since it is the acting president, it has the authority to direct the presidential office. However, no matter how much power you have to direct the presidential office, the president is not currently in a state of vacancy. The president is suspended from office. The position has not been lifted. If so, I believe that the chief of security is my judgment regarding the president's security, because according to Article 5 of the Security Act, the chief of security is to be judged. The subject is the chief of security. When the security chief judges, the area is also judged by the security chief, and when the security chief judges, such control and command authority are maintained. If so, I think the question of whether the acting president can order the part related to the president's security exists when the president is only suspended from his duties under his judgment. I don't want to challenge what the professor said earlier, but I think it's right for the security chief to actually judge the security of the president's current suspension. Even when the head of the security service announces his position, he takes all responsibility. And I think the part that I said I was doing it under my judgment was probably expressed in the Security Act that I was doing it under my judgment, so I think the fact that Acting President Choi Sang-mok does not express his position is an unspoken message that it is beyond my authority in that regard.

[Anchor]
That's how you see it.

[Bae Jong Ho]
What we shouldn't confuse a little is that the chief of security denies that he has the authority and responsibility of presidential security, but it's not right now. That's something that everyone acknowledges. But what's at stake right now is the court-issued arrest warrant, is the security authority of the head of the security service to prevent it from being executed? That's not the power of security. That's why I'm talking about that. As our critic said about Acting President Choi Sang-mok, the president is not in a state of vacancy and his duties have been suspended. If your job is suspended, you will not be able to exercise your authority. Permissions are suspended. Then, who exercises the presidential power in the current situation in Korea is the acting president Choi Sang-mok. Then, what is the most important exercise of presidential power by Acting President Choi Sang-mok, to quickly end this chaotic state of affairs. That's why we're normalizing the state administration. Then there are only two ways to normalize this chaotic state of affairs. One is to finish the impeachment trial quickly. Another thing is to finish the investigation of rebellion quickly. So what should we do to quickly finish the impeachment trial? And you have to create a nine-person system so there is no noise. If so, it was good to appoint even two constitutional judges this time, but there is no reason not to appoint one. So what I'm saying is to finish the nine-member system quickly and finish the impeachment trial quickly. In addition, President Yoon Suk Yeol said that he was proud and confident in the investigation of the rebellion. Then you can voluntarily attend. That's why you can be investigated. So you're rejecting it, so you're acting as the president, so cooperate with the security chief. That's why the warrant is executed, so I think you can attend and be investigated. So what I want to say in a word is that there is no middle ground. You have to make a choice. Democracy or civil war. I'm telling you that you have to make a choice here, whether it's justice or injustice, there's no middle ground.

[Anchor]
Anyway, there is only one day left until the expiration date of the arrest warrant, but he still hasn't answered the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit accurately. If so, in view of what the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has to choose now, it is whether to issue another arrest warrant or request an arrest warrant right away.

[Lee Jong-geun]
There's one more. To transfer to the police. Or just hand it over to the prosecution to prosecute it, and lastly, I'm just sweet, and when I choose the last one, the grounds for the existence of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will disappear. Don't you think so? You ask for a transfer at best, and then you transfer it to the police again? Roh Jong-myeon, a spokesman for the Democratic Party, told you. If this is the case, the Democratic Party even tells the police to transfer it back. Except for number three. But number 1 and number 2 are also do-dol-pyo. Let's say we're going to ask for an arrest warrant. Can an arrest warrant come out of the president's office as soon as I request it? It's the same procedure. You take an arrest warrant, an arrest warrant, or a warrant to secure a recruit. However, whether you issue an arrest warrant or an arrest warrant, if the president defends that he won't come out, it's the same result. Don't you think so? So, moreover, arrest warrants and arrest warrants have slightly different characteristics. An arrest warrant only means to urgently secure and investigate human beings, and an arrest warrant is actually a stage of arrest and prosecution. But the arrest warrant should be more thorough. We need to be more thorough with our calling and whether there is a definite risk of destroying evidence and fleeing. Then, of course, some of the four charges were clarified when Judge Yoo Chang-hoon dismissed Lee Jae-myung at that time. But didn't you reject the arrest warrant because you're the leader of the opposition party, so you don't have to worry about destroying evidence or fleeing? So, anyway, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit now has a variable of how the security of the security agency is.

[Anchor]
I know, as the critic said, an arrest warrant is much harder to get from the court than an arrest warrant. So, as you said, the charges should also be vindicated. How will the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit judge?

[Bae Jong Ho]
I said three things earlier. Another way to execute tomorrow is to extend the arrest warrant period. And it's a way to request an arrest warrant, and I personally think that if you request an arrest warrant, an arrest warrant will be issued, but it's much higher. However, from the point of view of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, if an arrest warrant is requested and it cannot be issued, the investigation becomes very difficult. And I think I'll be quite hesitant because I have no choice but to take all the blame for it. So the current situation is to try again tomorrow and extend the arrest warrant again. So, I think I'll ask for an arrest warrant when I think that if I request an arrest warrant in this situation, I'll be able to issue an arrest warrant. In this regard, the President of Yoon Suk Yeol said that he would comply with the substantive examination if he requested an arrest warrant, but I think this is a rhetoric and a lie. The reason why I see it that way is because President Yoon Suk Yeol has lied so many times so far. First of all, I apologized to the public regarding emergency martial law. And I changed it right away. I told you it's a legitimate act of governance, it's not subject to justice. And secondly, I will be legally and politically responsible. You completely avoided it. And even though an arrest warrant has been issued, he still won't go out, saying he will stand up to the investigation or impeachment. And rather, let's write to our supporters and fight to the end. In view of that, I think that if an arrest warrant is requested, it will not appear in the actual examination.

[Anchor]
I see. Once tomorrow passes, there is a greater possibility of another arrest warrant, and even if an arrest warrant is requested, there is a possibility that it will not appear there.

[Bae Jong Ho]
That's how I see it.

[Anchor]
I see. I think we should talk about the impeachment trial for a moment. First of all, the Constitutional Court has set a hearing date of five times. Starting with the first hearing on the 14th. So, despite President Yoon's opposition, the hearing preparation period ended with two sessions. In a way, I wonder if the Constitutional Court is speeding up the impeachment trial, but I hope we can talk about the key points today, but the National Assembly's impeachment prosecution changed the impeachment motion earlier. What it was about is that among the main reasons for the impeachment of President Yoon, he will withdraw the crime of rebellion. The crime of rebellion was so emphasized that when we impeached, we said, "Didn't you impeach because of the crime of rebellion?"

[Lee Jong-geun]
That's right. That was the biggest story of the panelists who claim the crime of rebellion when I was on the show. That's what I said. It will take a lot of time if the crime of rebellion is committed. Because you have to re-examine all of the commander's testimony one by one, and you have to question whether all of them are against you or against you. When I said that it takes a lot of time, all the progressive panels said this. The crime of rebellion is so clear. I've been arguing that this will end quickly because it's just too revealing and saying that there must be a crime of rebellion. But suddenly, I changed my position. There's only one reason. Because it's going to be very long. Of course, I told you it gets longer. But the problem is that this is completely different. The Constitutional Court has organized four things. The Constitutional Court is now reviewing the impeachment hearing. The first is the unconstitutionality of declaring martial law. The second is the unconstitutionality of the decree. The second is the obstruction of parliamentary activities. The fourth is the search and seizure of the NEC server. These are four things, but if you remove the crime of rebellion now, the latter two will disappear. Isn't there the most important National Assembly? It is the biggest core of the crime of rebellion that interfered with the National Assembly's activities or not. However, if you remove it altogether to not question whether you are guilty of rebellion, only the decree and the unconstitutionality of declaring martial law will remain. In this case, the most necessary procedure is a re-decision. I'm saying we have to vote again. Those who oppose it now say this. The prosecutor also changes the indictment. But the impeachment lawyers are acting as agents, who do they represent? It only represents 300 constitutional institutions, each constitutional institution. Like the bill, the prosecution proposed a single proposal. That's why I voted for it. But how many people can just change the bill arbitrarily? I can't change it. But if you're going to change that, this means you have to re-decide.

[Anchor]
Some even argue that the National Assembly should vote on the impeachment bill again, so why did the National Assembly's impeachment team ask to exclude it?

[Bae Jong Ho]
First of all, the logic that the National Assembly should re-decide is the argument of the people's power. If we don't re-decide, if this is a violation of the Constitution, wouldn't it be dismissed by the Constitution? So that's not something to worry about, but rather a matter to be welcomed by the power of the people. It's a matter that President Yoon Suk Yeol should welcome, so you don't have to worry. There's a precedent for that, too. What does that mean? When former President Park Geun Hye was impeached last time, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee was Kwon Sung-dong, the floor leader of the People's Power Party. At that time, the reason for the impeachment was reorganized. At that time, there were crimes of bribery, coercion, and criminal law, but what was the exact position at that time? This is a constitutional trial, not a criminal one. So we will focus on the Constitutional Court...

[Anchor]
They're saying the same thing now.

[Bae Jong Ho]
So, it is true that the two reasons for the impeachment include the crime of rebellion, violation of the Constitution, and emergency martial law. But our critic said he would take away the National Assembly part and the NEC part, but he didn't take it out. Because it's all in violation of the constitution related to illegal and unconstitutional emergency martial law. However, in applying it, it only deals with constitutional violations and excludes the criminal law. Because if you go to a criminal trial, you have to keep calling witnesses and prove them, so this could go over 180 days. That's why I'm saying that it was only organized in violation of the constitution in order to end it early.

[Anchor]
Then let's ask Professor Bae one more question. I don't have much time. Although the National Assembly's impeachment prosecution is actually called the National Assembly's impeachment prosecution, it is mainly composed of opposition parties. That's why I also have this suspicion. This is to see the results of the impeachment quickly. Because of CEO Lee Jae-myung's judicial risk. The appeal trial will begin soon regarding the violation of the election law. It means that various courts are starting to move again. What do you think of those interpretations?

[Bae Jong Ho]
It's true that you're trying to do it quickly. Because doing it quickly can minimize the confusion of state affairs now. It's about getting rid of uncertainty quickly. So what are the two principles of the Constitutional Court now, one is swift. Another thing is the process. So the Constitutional Court is talking about this. And then acting president Choi Sang-mok is also talking about it. So, to drag on the constitutional trial in the current situation means to continue to drag on the confusion of state affairs, and it is nothing more than the logic of President Yoon Suk Yeol, the logic of bulletproof. Then secondly, isn't it trying to help Lee Jae-myung in the election to finish it quickly? Then I think it can be helpful. Because there are no such times to apply judicial risk. But in my view, it's a kind of watering and misleading the essence. As I said, the essence is that we need to conduct an impeachment trial quickly in order to quickly clear up the confusion in state affairs. And please go ahead.

[Lee Jong-geun]
I'll raise a little objection to what happened eight years ago. That's the case eight years ago. What happened eight years ago was that the respondent, former President Park Geun Hye, did not raise an objection. The same goes for trials. In the same way in the trial, both prosecutors and lawyers agree on all the procedures and change the facts. The position of the president of Park Geun Hye at the time was that we will win this. So I accepted it with the position that I would finish it quickly. I'm saying that I'm not accepting it right now. And if that's possible in the same way, would Lee Jae-myung's second trial court now accept the prosecutor's request to finish this quickly, except for Kim Moon-ki's story, and if we agree and finish it quickly? I'll never accept it. So you shouldn't say that it's the same as it was eight years ago.

[Bae Jong Ho]
I don't know what you're talking about, but anyway, the Constitutional Court makes the judgment. It's not that President Yoon Suk Yeol is trying to slow down because he is in his favor, but it took me two months to impeach former President Roh Moo Hyun that I want to say that it doesn't apply to judicial risks. And it took three months during the former president of Park Geun Hye. Then, the impeachment bill was passed by the National Assembly on December 14, so if you apply it for two months, it will be February 14. Then it's going to be an election in April. Then, if you apply former President Park Geun Hye, it will be March and the election in May. Then, before that, there is a high probability that CEO Lee Jae-myung's judicial risk will become a reality. Because no matter how high the sky is, the Supreme Court's third trial cannot be concluded. So I'm telling you that it's a political offensive.

[Anchor]
I see. Eventually, the Constitutional Court will decide again. Let's stop here. Lee Jong-geun, a current affairs critic, and Bae Jong-ho, a professor at Seha University. Thank you.